Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

judgecorp writes "Electricite de France (EDF) which uses nuclear reactors to generate the majority of France's electricity, has been found guilty of hacking into Greenpeace computers in 2006. EDF has been fined fined €1.5 million and ordered to pay Greenpeace a further half a million euros, for what the judge described as an act of 'industrial scale espionage.'"

As long as this rule applies both ways -i.e. if Greenpeace were to hack into the computers if some other company, they would be fined a more or less equal amount- then I can't say I see any problem with it.

How is your assumption that several million dollars won't make a corporation blink relevant, or even for that matter anything but absurd? Contrary to your crassly class-envious beliefs, even a corporation will blink at a penalty like that.

But it's not fair to fine a citizen the same as a corporation. You could empty my bank accounts, and the corp wouldn't even notice that amount of money. So you can ruin a persons life, or fine a company effectively nothing, with the same dollar value. Fine me 10,000$, you better fine Exxon 25+ billion.

How's that different than a speeding ticket? Ever notice that the speeders on the interstate are almost always driving late model luxury cars? That $150 fine is way too high for me to afford, but for someone who spends $500 on a necktie that $150 fine is of less economic consequence than my buying a beer at a tavern.

I agree that it isn't moral, but the laws are written by the rich, so don't expect much morality.

No, his system is far more fair. Fining this company 2 million Euros has a far different impact than if, say, an average household was fined 2 million Euros. One is going to be able to absorb the costs. The other one has absolutely no chance of doing so.

Ah. HIdden in the PDFs, google usually pulls those out. 208M euros spent in 2010, so the news reports were about right.

Clearly 1.5M Euros would be painful but hardly crippling for them; barely more than 2 days operating costs. About the right fine, really, should they pull a stunt like EDF did. So I really think the original poster about the 15 euros was dead wrong.

if corporations 'are people' then they should GO TO JAIL like people when caught breaking the law.

it would be fun as hell to design what it means to be a corp 'in prison'. wouldn't it be fun?? imagine how we could stick it, back, to all the fucked up corps who have gotton away with bloody murder (or nearly so) over the years.

the thing is, justice is owned by the state and the state is now owned by corps. don't expect ANY justice toward corps. not until after some revolution (...) comes, anyway.

I would think they'd have to be able to service existing contracts, otherwise there would be absolutely no reason for them to exist. I do like the extremely tight controls on what they can charge, and what they can do with their profit. For one, VPs and other C level officers cannot leave the company. Second, their pay is slashed, and they get no bonuses or options as long as the company is in jail. The company cannot issue any more stock. Any profit they make, half of it is taken away. They are also not al

The closest analogy would be that the corporation is forcibly converted to be a non-profit for the period of a natural person's sentence plus a percentage (since an ex-con will require years after serving a sentence to be anything like solvent again). Meanwhile, executive salaries get set to the highest non-management position's salary with no bonuses of any kind. Golden parachutes are null and void (since the executives certainly could and should have prevented the criminal behavior).

if corporations 'are people' then they should GO TO JAIL like people when caught breaking the law.

I think the GP was pointing out that they don't. It was a reference to XCP, the trojan that Sony surreptuously installed on PCs that played their BMG CDs. I was a victim, my computer was completely trashed. I think Sony's CEO should have spent more time than Kevin Mitnik, since they hacked far more computers than Mitnik did. But nobody spent a day in the pokey, not even a singlt lowly Sony employee.

Yes, in much the same way that when an individual is imprisoned you don't send their friends and family down too. Shutting down the corporation hurts all its employees and their families, as well as the guilty parties.

Perhaps because the family and friends didn't play a part in the crime? The 'corporation' here was fined, not individuals. Hence the 'corporation' itself was punished...how do you imprison a corporation? Obviously you can't. So perhaps...we shouldn't be so willfully giving them the 'rights' of personhood without the correlated punishments...

It would be possible to liquidate most of the company's assets, and use that to pay the employees for up to a year while they find other employment. And such an action would start at the bottom, not the top. Those making the least amount in the company would be the first to get paid.

I usually feel obliged to defend France (I think they get a raw deal, especially from Americans who can't see past the last 80 years of history and forget how the French contributed during the American revolution), but in this particular context I'm cynical. I grew up in New Zealand, and was living in Auckland the night the Rainbow Warrior [wikipedia.org] was bombed. The two official French secret agents were sentenced to 10 years, served two, and most of that was in a tropical resort. They've since received medals and accolades from the government, both been promoted, written books...basically made out like heroes from this.

I won't claim to speak for all my fellow kiwis, but this is about the only incident that I hold a grudge over and think was never handled fairly.

I know this is Slashdot, but the French contributing to the success of the American Revolution was 100% done out of self-interest. The Bourbons loved democracy in the same way Americans loved radical Islam when we gave Afghanistan freedom fighters Stingers to shoot down Russian helicopters. And it came back and bit them in the tail in a much more dramatic and bloody way.

Likewise, the US had no interest in becoming involved in WWII until Pearl Harbour (or at least until Hitler declared war on the USA four days later) - over 2 years since the start of the war in Europe. Don't get me wrong, I can see why, after the loss of 110,000 soldiers in WWI.

It's common for some Americans to go on about how we'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for them, so I think it's only fair for them to be reminded that it's quite possible they'd still be speaking the Queen's English and drinking warm beer if it weren't for the French.

Like Britain petitioning the USA to enter WWII, Benjamin Franklin actively petitioned for support in France in 1776 - the only difference was that the French covertly entered the American War of Independence before formally recognising the USA two years later - causing Britain to declare war on France.

Like Britain petitioning the USA to enter WWII, Benjamin Franklin actively petitioned for support in France in 1776 - the only difference was that the French covertly entered the American War of Independence before formally recognising the USA two years later - causing Britain to declare war on France.

Then there's not really any difference then. We had entered the war long before Pearl Harbor. We already were drafting men into the army. We were trading destroyers to Britain for bases. We had established the

...and was living in Auckland the night the Rainbow Warrior [wikipedia.org] was bombed. The two official French secret agents were sentenced...

That was the first thing I thought of too. What exactly does France have against Greenpeace anyway? Its almost as if they want to beat up on somebody, but don't feel compentent enough to pick on anyone but the one scrawny little kid off in the corner eating paste.

So far from my observation if a private individual hacks, the private individual risks going to prison.

Whereas if a corporation does it there's no prison time involved for any of the people involved.

I think prison time would discourage both private individuals and individuals acting on behalf of corporations.

Under US law, corporations shield the owners from financial loss, not criminal behavior. A person commits a crime and goes to jail regardless of whether they acted on behalf of a corporation. The executives at Enron were all charged with fraud, for example. This case is under French law, tho.

I didn't read the article yet, but 1.5 million euros seems like kind of a slap on the wrist for a power company. They'll prob make that much profit just from people using their computers to read this slashdot story (ok, that's kind of a hyperbole, but you get the idea). If this was "industrial scale espionage" like the summary said, you'd think there would be more than just a "small" fine for punishment.

The judge sentenced Pierre-Paul François, who was EDF’s deputy head of nuclear production security in 2006 to three years imprisonment, with 30 months suspended. Meanwhile his boss, Pascal Durieux, who was EDF’s head of nuclear production security in 2006, was also sentenced to three years imprisonment, two years suspended, and a 10,000 euros (£8,500) fine for apparently commissioning the spying operation.

and

As a result of this, the French judge issued a guilty verdict in the case of Thierry Lorho, the head of Kargus Consultants. The former member of France’s secret services was sentenced to three years in jail, with two suspended and a €4,000 (£3,450) fine. EDF was also ordered to pay €50,000 (£42,800) to Jadot.

Incidentally, the French secret service of which the Kargus consulting creep was an alumnus was the same entity responsible for sinking one of Greenpeace's ships with limpet mines in order to avoid being inconvenienced by a protest they were going to lead... Keep it classy [wikipedia.org].

The key quote FTA:But in 1988 his conviction was overturned by the California Supreme Court, which cited precedent establishing that "for [an act] to constitute 'prostitution,' the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute" [emphasis added]. The court found that the "payment of acting fees was the only payment involved in the instant case. . . . There is no evidence that [Freeman] paid the acting fees for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors'." Thus, no prostitution.

There usually is quite a bit of paperwork that has to be done in order to do adult films. Typically there has to be signed and notarized paperwork indicating all of the actors are over 18. Most states usually also require STD tests to be done every so often, and results to be kept on file.

I thought the French could literally get away with murder as far as Greenpeace were concerned.

A bit off topic, but an entirely new and very cool method of fingerprint detection using lasers was developed which led to the arrest of the French agents that planted the bomb on a Greenpeace ship some years ago. It's a pity they didn't get to serve their prison sentence.

The Rainbow Warrior was attacked in a way that was supposed to have no civilian casualties. What the French could have quite legally have done is waited for the Rainbow Warrior and the yachts it was bringing to illegally enter French territorial waters to disrupt legitimate weapons testing is have their navy open fire on them.

That's not murder. Murder assumes the attack had no legitimate right to attack. If Greenpeace had disrupted the French military's operations, they would have been quite legally justifi

The Rainbow Warrior was attacked in a way that was supposed to have no civilian casualties.

A very large quantity of explosives? There's no point trying to pretend that it's OK to use deadly force if you don't actually mean to kill anyone. I assume you are in the USA. Consider what would happen if a foreign power tried the same thing in the USA today. I know it happened in Reagan's time with Orlando Letelier getting blown up in Washington D.C. but what would happen now?It appears we are straying a little

Consider what would happen if a foreign power tried the same thing in the USA today.

...in Baltimore Harbor. The Rainbow Warrior wasn't blown up at sea; this occurred in harbor in the largest city in the country, with a lot of other completely unrelated ships and their personnel in the vicinity.

Think of EDF's hacking as civil disobedience aimed at Greenpeace. They're violating the law in a nonviolent (but potentially harmful) way to fight someone that they don't like. Greenpeace is also in the business of violating the law in a nonviolent (but potentially harmful) way to fight someone that they don't like. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Really?Okay I am no fan of Geenpeace at all. I do not think their tactics and often their goals are correct.However...EDF is a heavily regulated utility company that is responsible for the running of nuclear facilites. They should without a doubt be held to an extremely high standard when it comes to following laws and regulations.Greenpeace is a bunch of hippies that think they are doing good. Just as their is no room for Police officers and the military to be allowed to commit institutional acts of civil disobedience there can be no room for EDF to do the same.Plus I am sure that Greenpeace members have spent the night in jail in the past and will again.

1)The EDF is a heavily government tied organization! They are an essential service and a monopoly power PLUS their hands in government gives them more influence than most elected individuals.If EDF is functionally a form of government then it is nowhere near what is thought of as civil disobedience because its a gov backed corp.

2)Civil disobedience is a subtle definition; its not literally breaking some laws:That wasn't robbery, I was doing "civil disobedience" that wasn't trespassing it was "civil disobedi

I used to think like that, but then I worked for a company that cost several hundred million to build. Millions of dollars came in and left through the place on a daily basis at times. They only got to keep pennies on the dollar and most of the money had to go towards the loans and other investors. There were times the company had tens of thousands on its books as usable, owned, cash.

You can't judge cost to build as the standard for something like this. The investors and owners, probably could come up with that easily. The company itself if there are enough shield corporations between it and the owners? Hard to say.

To answer your 'deaths per TWH' reference. That's not the point. The point is how much cost is associated with that figure. Where would coal be on that list if they had to fully scrub their emissions to prevent the mercury and other such stuff from escaping? Now add CO2.

They could easily get their numbers down to nuclear levels but it wouldn't be economical in any sense...

and they might need....wait for it....

government loan guarantees to be able to build such expensive plants.

Lets talk about construction versus operation. Exactly how many people die from solar panels simply sitting on a roof? Does your nuclear figure include the construction costs of the plants? Wind ditto. It just sits there spinning and as long as you aren't within a few hundred yards on a *very* windy day...zero casualties.

Exactly how many people die from solar panels simply sitting on a roof? Does your nuclear figure include the construction costs of the plants?

Most of the death toll from nuclear power since the adoption of the containment vessel probably comes from mining, not construction. I'm willing to bet the same for other forms of generation, except for fossil fuels and hydroelectric. Getting the raw materials out of the ground is a labor intensive process requiring heavy machinery and risky setups, and lives are invariably lost or shortened more so than in normal construction. In China alone, between 5,000 and 20,000 people die each year from mining accide

If you are going to hold nuclear to these extreme corner cases, please hold all other energy generation techniques to equally high standards.

I hold them to extreme corner cases as commensurate with the risk of what happens when those conditions manifest themselves.

Nuclear simply has consequences that no other power source does. In each and every other case I can quite safely walk the grounds of a failed power plant the very day after the accident. You simply can't do that with nuclear when it goes tits up.

Slightly OT, but just for kicks I calculated the deaths/TWh for nuclear if you included Hiroshima and Nagasaki (~250,000 deaths). I ended up with 6 deaths/TWh from the.04 deaths/TWh originally. Oil is 36 deaths/TWh and US Coal is 15. I think that nicely shows just how deadly Oil and Coal are.

I didn't want to get into all that to keep my comment concise and to the point. I was replying to a comment whose logic was "Cost a lot to build, therefore must surely have money to pay this off."

I was countering that argument with a personal example that I lived. Not hearsay or second hand information.

I concede and admit that there are numerous other variables in play here. I am not saying $2 million is not a lot for the company currently. Maybe this plant wasn't making pennies on the dollar. Maybe it

Loan guarantees cost the government absolutely nothing as long as the company doesn't declare bankruptcy. Because as the name suggests it's simply a guarantee, not a subsidy. It allows the company to borrow at government interest rates (2-3%) rather than market interest rates (6-9%) with the only cost being the government backs the debt with a payment guarantee in the event the company becomes insolvent.

Yes, it is a subsidy. And quite frankly, if they are getting those subsidies, then they absolutely should not bitch about anyone else receiving them. The second that happens, they should lose the subsidy.

When push comes to shove and you evaluate whether a government is able to pay back what it owes, loan guarantees count just like everything else. A stupid, non-scientific rule of thumb is that a country is in trouble when its loans are up to a years worth of GDP. If the loan guarantees push the government above that psychological boundary, they can get very, very expensive. At lower levels of debt, loan guarantees only push the overall interest rate slightly higher, so they still cost more than absolutely n

There was nothing wrong with what he said. He didn't say they were borrowing from the government, he said that they could borrow (from private banks) at government rates.

The reason that governments get much lower rates is that they are very unlikely to default on their loans so there is much less risk and cost involved in loaning them money. That means that the interest rate they charge can be very low. If you can get the government credit "blanket" extended over you, then the banks can consider your loan to be just as safe as a government one and give you the same deal.

So he was right, a loan guarantee is NOT a subsidy, unless there is a bankruptcy. It makes it less expensive to build a reactor, but that money does not come from the government. I was also loaned money for my education that was a federal student loan. Since the government was on the hook for the money, I got a low interest rate, but the government did not pay one cent for my education loans.

A loan guarantee is a subsidy. The alternative would be to get your loan guaranteed by a AAA rated insurance company, if such a thing still exists, and you would have to pay them a pretty hefty insurance premium for that.

As the government is essentially acting as a credit insurer here, if they give out enough of these guarantees, there will be claims on some of them, so there is an actual cost involved.

The lost profit is to the bank at the expense of the company borrowing the capital, not the taxpayers. More to the point, it is not actually lost profit because without the lower interest rates, many of these businesses wouldn't even be borrowing any capital which would mean the profit would be... wait for it...

non-existent without the gov't loan guarantees.

The way you rail against it you'd think the nuclear power industry molested you or something. This is the point where you have lost credibility du

A lower cost to build the plant is relative. Without the guarantees, the plant would not be built so in essence, there is not a lower cost to build the plant, there is only one cost which since lower is a comparative term it is invalid in this case because there is no comparison. That is not a subsidy. Now if the gov't wasn't collecting taxes due on said plant or was deferring its own collection of interest premiums then that would be a subsidy, but neither are occurring in this case.

I will preface this by saying I have no idea of the comparative cash flows in different countries, or between different parts of the utility/electric industry. That said...

In the U.S., if you are part of the power grid (critical infrastructure, also known as the Bulk Electric System, or BES) and are found in violation, NERC [nerc.com] has the power to fine you one million dollars per violation, per day. This fine starts at the outset of the violation (not when it was actually discovered) and can continue until it is rectified. Example trade magazine discussion [powermag.com], second paragraph under NERC Basics.

Their punishment is not "had to spend 2 million euros." The punishment is they had to give Greenpeace 2 million euros. The money might be a small sum for them, but it's not a small sum for Greenpeace. They obviously consider them enough of a threat to make it worth breaking the law, and now they have to give this apparent enemy 2 million euros. I wonder what Greenpeace will spend that wad of cash on.

Analogy time. You own a bunch of guns. You're ordered to give one of them up. Big deal, you've got dozens mor

From the article it doesn't sound like the full two million went to GP, only about €500,000, which when you consider GP is a world wide organization sponsoring TV ads during the Superbowl (Which are what, $3 million per minute) and other major events, that's not very much. From reading around it sounds like they raised over €100 Million in just last year.

In the vast majority of cases a fine levied by the government is paid to the government.

The fact is that two execs from a powerful public utility got jail sentence. So it is not "unlike the rainbow warrior case" but it is rather very good sign on how justice worked in France for this particular cases regardless of the past and despite the fact the French govt would have more interest in supporting nuclear business.